http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/05/the-science-of-chinese-whispers-gone-wrong/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:48:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/05/the-science-of-chinese-whispers-gone-wrong/#comment-44225 meski Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:56:28 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/05/the-science-of-chinese-whispers-gone-wrong/#comment-44225 @Scott, and many prominent journals only let you view an abstract of an article without paying a (hefty) fee, and often belonging to closed organisations. @Scott, and many prominent journals only let you view an abstract of an article without paying a (hefty) fee, and often belonging to closed organisations.

]]> http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/05/the-science-of-chinese-whispers-gone-wrong/#comment-44145 Scott Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:22:36 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/05/the-science-of-chinese-whispers-gone-wrong/#comment-44145 There is a lot of dodgyness going on in science journalism at the moment. I heard a rumour that some prominant journals charge a fee to scientists (and their backers i.e university) who want to get articles published. Dangerously close to cash-for-comment in my opinion. There is a lot of dodgyness going on in science journalism at the moment. I heard a rumour that some prominant journals charge a fee to scientists (and their backers i.e university) who want to get articles published. Dangerously close to cash-for-comment in my opinion.

]]>